Re: Pinholes (was Re: glenn's peephole fisheye)

2001-03-04 Thread Gerald Cermak
ject: Pinholes (was Re: glenn's peephole fisheye) > Steve Larson > > Glenn wrote: > > > Field of view on a pinhole can be changed with extension tubes, BTW. > > > And you're right about precision of the hole -- I've not yet managed > > > to get one

Re: glenn's peephole fisheye

2001-03-04 Thread Gerald Cermak
to a body cap. Cheers, Gerald - Original Message - From: "D. Glenn Arthur Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 6:55 AM Subject: RE: glenn's peephole fisheye > Peter Smith wrote: > > Are you trying to make a

Re: Pinholes (was Re: glenn's peephole fisheye)

2001-03-04 Thread canislupus
afaik the thickness of the sheet in which the hole is matters. You will get more vignetting at wider view with thick sheet than with very thin sheet. Also, the elipticall hole (as seen from the side) will cause less sharpness, perhaps. The reality might differ, though :) Frantisek - This messa

Re: glenn's peephole fisheye

2001-03-04 Thread Steve Larson
Glenn wrote: > Field of view on a pinhole can be changed with extension tubes, BTW. > And you're right about precision of the hole -- I've not yet managed > to get one sharp enough in the thin sheets of brass I'm using (taped > across a larger hole in the plastic body cap). Last time I played >

RE: glenn's peephole fisheye

2001-03-04 Thread D. Glenn Arthur Jr.
Peter Smith wrote: > Are you trying to make a pinhole Camera? No, I'm trying to use one of those lensed peepholes that mount into a hole you drill in your front door, that provides about a 180-degree field of view. Realy cheap fisheye. Additional info: Using a 55/1.8 instead of the 50/1

RE: glenn's peephole fisheye

2001-03-04 Thread Peter Smith
ctive but ne're mind eh? Peter > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dan Scott > Sent: 04 March 2001 06:31 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: glenn's peephole fisheye > > > > >In completely unrel

Re: glenn's peephole fisheye

2001-03-03 Thread D. Glenn Arthur Jr.
> Might be that the minimum focus distance of your eye is better than that of > your M42 50mm. Sounds like a cool project, though. Urf. In a way that the extension tube wouldn't help with? (With no extension I couldn't get a recognizeable image, nor with a longer extension, but with 12mm extens

glenn's peephole fisheye

2001-03-03 Thread Dan Scott
>In completely unrelated news, I finally got around to making a hole >in a lens cap to mount one of those fisheye peephole thingies I got >at a hardware store many months ago, and played with it on the front >of an M42 50mm briefly. It does want a short extension tube behind >it (and if there's